OT: The Colorado shooter's guns.

[BillB]

Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best interest to
have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning these
weapons?


AR-15 Semi-automatic Rifle

"The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated,
magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated
by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston
operation. It is manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys
and synthetic materials.

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle
for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems,
ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered
the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt
AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in
1963.[8] The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark, which refers
only to the semi-automatic rifle."

http://guns.yfa1.ru/eng/image/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine.jpg

*from what I understand, the AR-15 was equipped with some kind of
aftermarket high capacity magazine, which ended up jamming.




Remington 870 Shotgun

"The Remington Model 870 is a U.S.-made pump-action shotgun manufactured
by Remington Arms Company, Inc. It is widely used by the public for
sport shooting, hunting, and self-defense. It is also commonly used by
law enforcement and military organizations worldwide."

http://www.wanstallsonline.com/images/P/rem870GR-600.png



Glock .40 (x2)

"The Glock pistol, sometimes referred to by the manufacturer as Glock
"Safe Action" Pistol, is a series of semi-automatic pistols designed and
produced by Glock Ges.m.b.H., located in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria...
Glock pistols have become the company's most profitable line of
products, commanding 65% of the market share of handguns for United
States law enforcement agencies[6] as well as supplying numerous
national armed forces and security agencies worldwide."

http://fahq-u.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/glock23gen36.jpg

[ramashiva]

On Jul 24, 1:59 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

> Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best interest to
> have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning these
> weapons?

No one gives a fuck what is in your best interest. The second
amendment is designed to protect the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, not serve your best interest.

Thanks for reminding me again that you are a total asshole.

You lost me when you insisted the Boy Scouts were bigots because they
want to belong to a faggot-free organization.

You are the perfect embodiment of a left-wing politically correct
asshole. You should really take a look at your behavior and the
behavior of your clones, Clave and Jerry. You guys consistently label
anyone who disagrees with you on a political issue as bigots. This
kind of demonization of people for simply disagreeing with you on a
political issue is one of many reasons why the left must be destroyed
in this country if we are to survive as a free country, because right
underneath that stringent, judgemental political correctness is a
totalitarian mentality.

All these weapons are run of the mill weapons owned by millions of
people. I have a much more extensive armory myself, as do many other
patriotic Americans.


William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)

[Dave the Clueless]

On Jul 24 2012 5:59 AM, BillB wrote:

> Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best interest to
> have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning these
> weapons?

Hyperbole is a debate tactic of the uninformed, bigot.

-------
When the truth hurts, lie. - Obama 2012

[BillB]

On 7/24/2012 3:38 AM, ramashiva wrote:

> No one gives a fuck what is in your best interest.

That is nonsense, of course. Many people care about my best interests.
Of course, my sentence was designed to make people think about the
problem in terms of *their* own best interests, as I was doing for
myself. You'd think someone with a 200 IQ would have realized that??

The second
> amendment is designed to protect the right of the people to keep and
> bear arms, not serve your best interest.

Actually, reasonable regulation does not run afoul of the Second
Amendment. You need to read the case law if you hope to discuss this
issue intelligently. Even if the Second Amendment did not allow for such
reasonable regulation, it would still be appropriate to discuss the
prudence of such a rule, and call for its repeal or amendment.

> Thanks for reminding me again that you are a total asshole.

Isn't that ironic.

> You lost me when you insisted the Boy Scouts were bigots because they
> want to belong to a faggot-free organization.

Of course they are bigoted against homosexuals. You can hardly be more
intolerant of people than not allowing them to be around you or join
your club. Similarly, a social club that excludes Jews (they still have
a few of those, don't they?) is bigoted against Jews.

> You are the perfect embodiment of a left-wing politically correct
> asshole.

Politically correct = decent human being? Ok, I'm "politically correct."

You should really take a look at your behavior and the
> behavior of your clones, Clave and Jerry. You guys consistently label
> anyone who disagrees with you on a political issue as bigots.

No I label people who are intolerant of homosexuals as bigots, BY
DEFINITION. Bigotry = intolerance.

This
> kind of demonization of people for simply disagreeing with you on a
> political issue

Anything can be a "political issue." Freeing the slaves was a political
issue. So what? I do not demonize people for disagreeing with me on
political issues. I demonize people for being racists, bigots and haters
of all stripes. I demonize such people because they are demons.

> All these weapons are run of the mill

An AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is not a run-of-the-mill weapon. It
is a weapon of mass destruction that has a specific appeal to gun
nutters and wannabe GI Joes.

> I have a much more extensive armory myself, as do many other
> patriotic Americans.

You're just helping me make my point. I guess up until last week Jame
Holmes was what you'd call a "patriotic American" too?

[BillB]

On 7/24/2012 5:47 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Jul 24 2012 5:59 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best interest to
>> have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning these
>> weapons?
>
> Hyperbole is a debate tactic of the uninformed, bigot.

Uh, there was no hyperbole. The gun industry would like nothing more
than for what I suggested to come to pass. Haven't you heard the gun
industry's famous (idiotic) slogan:

More guns = less crime.

If more guns = less crime, the US should be one of the safest places on
earth. Instead, you've got mass shootings happening left and right. Is
there ANY level of obscene violence where a typical teabagger-type would
finally say "enough is enough?"

This James Holmes nutter bought several guns in the space of a couple of
weeks, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and tactical assault
gear. You don't think that should send up a red flag somewhere in a
civilized society?

[bratt]

On Jul 24 2012 9:39 AM, BillB wrote:

> On 7/24/2012 3:38 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>
> > No one gives a fuck what is in your best interest.
>
> That is nonsense, of course. Many people care about my best interests.
> Of course, my sentence was designed to make people think about the
> problem in terms of *their* own best interests, as I was doing for
> myself. You'd think someone with a 200 IQ would have realized that??

LOL yet again - don't read what I wrote, read what I mean

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[ramashiva]

On Jul 24, 7:39 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

> You're just helping me make my point. I guess up until last week Jame
> Holmes was what you'd call a "patriotic American" too?

I still consider James Holmes to be a patriotic American. There are
way too many people in this country, which is putting a great strain
on the environment and depleting our natural resources. Not to
mention the diminished quality of life from pollution, overcrowding,
etc.

Time to thin the herd. Mr. Holmes made a small contribution to
thinning the herd, and I applaud him for that.

[BillB]

On 7/24/2012 8:06 AM, bratt wrote:
> On Jul 24 2012 9:39 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 7/24/2012 3:38 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>>
>>> No one gives a fuck what is in your best interest.
>>
>> That is nonsense, of course. Many people care about my best interests.
>> Of course, my sentence was designed to make people think about the
>> problem in terms of *their* own best interests, as I was doing for
>> myself. You'd think someone with a 200 IQ would have realized that??
>
> LOL yet again - don't read what I wrote, read what I mean

Yes, susan, it has already been well established that I write far above
your comprehension ability. When I ask readers why a specific political
issue is in *my* best interest, I am inviting them to analyze the
problem for themselves from that selfish perspective.

So, tell me susan, why is it in YOUR best interest for angst-ridden
20-somethings to own assault (type) rifles with 100 round magazines with
no restriction or oversight?

[Dave the Clueless]

More hyperbole does not lessen the stupidity of your initial hyperbole,

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 24 2012 9:29 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> > >> Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best interest to
> > >> have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning these
> > >> weapons?
> > >
> > > Hyperbole is a debate tactic of the uninformed, bigot.
> >
> > Uh, there was no hyperbole. The gun industry would like nothing more
> > than for what I suggested to come to pass. Haven't you heard the gun
> > industry's famous (idiotic) slogan:
> >
> > More guns = less crime.
> >
> > If more guns = less crime, the US should be one of the safest places on
> > earth. Instead, you've got mass shootings happening left and right. Is
> > there ANY level of obscene violence where a typical teabagger-type would
> > finally say "enough is enough?"
> >
> > This James Holmes nutter bought several guns in the space of a couple of
> > weeks, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and tactical assault
> > gear. You don't think that should send up a red flag somewhere in a
> > civilized society?
>
> More hyperbole does not lessen the stupidity of your initial hyperbole,
> bigot.

he's fundamentally dishonest. i know many who own the exact guns
mentioned. if you have a brain, you want them sitting next to you in that
theater.

mo_ntresor

[VegasJerry]

Well done, Bill. You have the idiots and dipshits on the run.

[ramashiva]

On Jul 24, 8:43 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> he's fundamentally dishonest.  i know many who own the exact guns
> mentioned.  if you have a brain, you want them sitting next to you in that
> theater.

Exactly. The solution to gun violence is universal open carry, with
concealed carry a right which cannot be denied except in extreme
circumstances. Even the most deranged individual is unlikely to shoot
up a theater if he knows everyone in the theater is heavily armed.

[bratt]

Apparently it went over Willies head too. And I already told you, and
you so nicely keep avoiding, I am not answering any questions from you
until you answer mine

You and Jerry have the same thing in common - its called avoidance.

But keep on spouting - I'm sure there is someone, somewhere who cares.

[Dave the Clueless]

On Jul 24 2012 12:54 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> Well done, Bill. You have the idiots and dipshits on the run.

When Jerry is the only one cheering you know you've said something
profoundly stupid.

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:06:32 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> On Jul 24 2012 10:15 AM, BillB wrote:

> And I already told you, and you so nicely keep
> avoiding, I am not answering any questions from you
> until you answer mine

Bullshit! I have repeatedly answered questions of yours and then challanged you to answer mine and you have refused.

> You and Jerry have the same thing in common

Proving you a liar.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[bratt]

You really do live in your own little world, don't you Jerry. Is it
lonely in there? (not a question to be answered)

[BTSinAustin]

Bingo. In the last two weeks we all saw the video of the old man opening
fire on the thugs terrorizing the internet cafe in Miami. The bandits
did not return fire as most anti gun zealots would suggest. To here them
tell it it turns into the OK Corral. Instead they ran away as cowards do.
Thank god it was in Florida where people are allowed to defend
themselves. Had it been in New York the man would be facing prison time
instead of being hailed as a hero by the only ones that count, the people
he saved.



Brian "The Truth" Spencer

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 24 2012 10:56 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:

> > Exactly. The solution to gun violence is universal open carry, with
> > concealed carry a right which cannot be denied except in extreme
> > circumstances. Even the most deranged individual is unlikely to shoot
> > up a theater if he knows everyone in the theater is heavily armed.
>

> Bingo. In the last two weeks we all saw the video of the old man opening
> fire on the thugs terrorizing the internet cafe in Miami. The bandits
> did not return fire as most anti gun zealots would suggest. To here them
> tell it it turns into the OK Corral. Instead they ran away as cowards do.
> Thank god it was in Florida where people are allowed to defend
> themselves. Had it been in New York the man would be facing prison time
> instead of being hailed as a hero by the only ones that count, the people
> he saved.

it's unfortunate he wasn't able to kill the two pieces of shit.

mo_ntresor

[BTSinAustin]

Had he had the Glock 40 instead of a 380 it would have ended a bit
different. But the 380 is light enough for an old man to carry. Thank
god for carry permits!


Brian "The Truth" Spencer

[Beldumb TurdSavant]

On Jul 24 2012 11:55 AM, ramashiva wrote:

Colorado is a right to carry state and the theater that the shooting took
place in last week does not prevent people from carrying concealed
weapons. Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from
shooting up a theater full of people. I support RTC, I am a member of the
NRA and licensed to carry in many states.(Except my own state, IL.) I
believe RTC can and does prevent some criminal activity, it would not have
prevented the massacre in Colorado last week.

[ramashiva]

On Jul 24, 10:15 am, "Beldumb TurdSavant" <a866...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

> Colorado is a right to carry state and the theater that the shooting took
> place in last week does not prevent people from carrying concealed
> weapons.  Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from
> shooting up a theater full of people.  I support RTC, I am a member of the
> NRA and licensed to carry in many states.(Except my own state, IL.)  I
> believe RTC can and does prevent some criminal activity, it would not have
> prevented the massacre in Colorado last week.

If I had been in the audience and carrying my Ruger .357 magnum
revolver with 7.5" barrel and loaded with 158-grain hollow point
rounds, I would have put one of those hollow points between the
shooter's eyes before he did much damage.

The 7.5" barrel makes accurate shooting at the ranges involved in a
movie theater easy, and I am a dead accurate shot with this revolver
at 50 yards. Most people have no understanding of the lethality of
such a revolver in the hands of an expert handgun shooter, which I am.

[bratt]

On Jul 24 2012 12:15 PM, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:

> Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a
theater full of people.

NOTHING will prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a theater full
of people.

[double....@hotmail.com]

Until blacks/minorities start committing mass murders with guns and
ammo purchased legally, nothing will happen to make gun laws stricter.

[ramashiva]

On Jul 24, 10:36 am, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> On Jul 24 2012 12:15 PM, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:

> > Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a
> > theater full of people.

> NOTHING will prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a theater full
> of people.

Nonsense. See my post above. If you don't know, don't post.

[bratt]

NOTHING can prevent it - you even just said you might lessen the damage.
By the time you understood what was happening do you not think he would
have killed several? And if you were on the far side of where he was with
people scrambling around trying to get out of his way do you not think
that maybe you wouldn't have a straight shot? Or even a visual?

Actually, as I say NOTHING, maybe we should institute airport security
everywhere - malls, movie theaters, grocery stores. Make everyone take of
their shoes, have a full body scan or patdown everywhere we go.

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:53:45 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> On Jul 24 2012 11:16 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>

> &gt; On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:06:32 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Jul 24 2012 10:15 AM, BillB wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; And I already told you, and you so nicely keep
> &gt; &gt; avoiding, I am not answering any questions from you
> &gt; &gt; until you answer mine
> &gt;
> &gt; Bullshit! I have repeatedly answered questions of yours and then challanged

> you to answer mine and

> &gt; you have refused.
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; You and Jerry have the same thing in common
> &gt;
> &gt; Proving you a liar.
> &gt;
> &gt; Jerry &#39;n Vegas

>
>
> You really do live in your own little world, don't you Jerry.

No; because what I've stated is fact; and you can't address it.

Learn to lose; again.

Jerry

[phlash74]

I'm not in favor of a police state or security theatre. No matter how much
security you have, you have very little chance of stopping a lone whackjob
who is a) reasonably intelligent, b) determined, and c) not afraid of
being arrested or killed from causing major damage as in the shootings in
Aurora (or at Virginia Tech). The immediate aftermath of such a tragedy is
precisely the wrong time imo to conduct a rational debate about gun laws,
increased security, etc. because emotions on both sides are running high.

Michael

[Beldumb TurdSavant]

I was at a theater over the weekend watching Batman and before the movie
started I was running all kinds of scenarios about what I would do in a
similar situation. Getting off a clean shot all depended on where I was
sitting, how much tear gas & smoke was filling the room, and the reaction
of the other people in the theater. Am I in the middle of an aisle and
people scrambling over me trying to evacuate?

I love the Luger Redhwak 357 Magnum. I have only used it with the 5.5
inch barrel.

[VegasJerry]

Don't forget, this was an intelligent white guy. And, well, you know…..

[bratt]

On Jul 24 2012 1:26 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:53:45 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > On Jul 24 2012 11:16 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:06:32 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > > On Jul 24 2012 10:15 AM, BillB wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I already told you, and you so nicely keep

> > > > avoiding, I am not answering any questions from you

> > > > until you answer mine

> > >
> > > Bullshit! I have repeatedly answered questions of yours and then
challanged
> > you to answer mine and

> > > you have refused.

> > >
> > > > You and Jerry have the same thing in common
> > >

> > > Proving you a liar.
> > >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas

> >
> >
> > You really do live in your own little world, don't you Jerry.
>
> No; because what I've stated is fact; and you can't address it.
>
> Learn to lose; again.
>
> Jerry

stated as fact? you haven't even commented on the OPs thread.

[bratt]

My *airport security* paragraph was said in jest.

[Dutch]

How can it be hyperbole? The guy actually went on a mass killing spree.

If Bill had expressed fear of YOU and your personal arsenal, that might
be hyperbole, but he specifically referred to guys like this, one of
many unhinged nitwits who have easy access to weapons like this.

[Dutch]

bratt wrote:
> On Jul 24 2012 12:15 PM, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:
>
>> Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a
> theater full of people.
>
> NOTHING will prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a theater full
> of people.

In this case someone monitoring the exits would have prevented him from
coming back in.

[phlash74]

On Jul 24 2012 11:35 AM, bratt wrote:


> My *airport security* paragraph was said in jest.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
> Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

OK, sorry it didn't come across that way to me. No offense intended.

Michael

[Dave the Clueless]

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/1911-xo-black.aspx
Only a 5" barrel but I'm pretty accurate at 50'.

A few rounds of http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/AMM-524 into the
chest will get the job done, vest or no vest.

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 24 2012 12:40 PM, Dutch wrote:

> > More hyperbole does not lessen the stupidity of your initial hyperbole,
> > bigot.
>
> How can it be hyperbole? The guy actually went on a mass killing spree.
>
> If Bill had expressed fear of YOU and your personal arsenal, that might
> be hyperbole, but he specifically referred to guys like this, one of
> many unhinged nitwits who have easy access to weapons like this.

another cannuck idiot

YAWN

mo_ntresor

[ramashiva]

On Jul 24, 11:29 am, "Beldumb TurdSavant" <a866...@webnntp.invalid>

wrote:

> On Jul 24 2012 1:33 PM, ramashiva wrote:

> > On Jul 24, 10:15 am, "Beldumb TurdSavant" <a866...@webnntp.invalid>
> > wrote:

> > > Colorado is a right to carry state and the theater that the shooting took
> > > place in last week does not prevent people from carrying concealed
> > > weapons. Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from
> > > shooting up a theater full of people. I support RTC, I am a member of the
> > > NRA and licensed to carry in many states.(Except my own state, IL.) I
> > > believe RTC can and does prevent some criminal activity, it would not have
> > > prevented the massacre in Colorado last week.

> > If I had been in the audience and carrying my Ruger .357 magnum
> > revolver with 7.5" barrel and loaded with 158-grain hollow point
> > rounds, I would have put one of those hollow points between the
> > shooter's eyes before he did much damage.

> > The 7.5" barrel makes accurate shooting at the ranges involved in a
> > movie theater easy, and I am a dead accurate shot with this revolver
> > at 50 yards.  Most people have no understanding of the lethality of
> > such a revolver in the hands of an expert handgun shooter, which I am.

> I was at a theater over the weekend watching Batman and before the movie
> started I was running all kinds of scenarios about what I would do in a
> similar situation.

This is something which intelligent people do all the time. In every
situation, you should always ask yourself what you will do if someone
attacks you or physically threatens you. That way, if worst comes to
worst, you have a plan.

I carry this to an extreme, as do many others who believe in always
being prepared for the worst case scenario. Even if I am with someone
who I think is my friend, I am asking myself --

What will I do if this guy suddenly goes nuts and attacks me?

Some of you will think this is excessive paranoia. It's not. It's
called being prepared and having a plan to deal with worst case
scenarios.

Just like Alim, myself, and many other survival preppers have a plan
to survive the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI).

Maggot thinks this is cowardly, and that no plan will get you through
TEOTWAWKI. Maggot is wrong, as usual.

[ramashiva]

Really, Dutch? The guy is armed to the teeth and in a homicidal
rage. You think a rent-a-cop is going to even slow him down???

Seriously, Dutch. You are a politically correct armchair liberal.
You have no understanding of violence and how to deal with it. Leave
the discussion to those of us who have actually dealt with violent
situations and know what is required.

[BTSinAustin]

On Jul 24 2012 2:19 PM, bratt wrote:

> On Jul 24 2012 12:45 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 10:36�am, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 24 2012 12:15 PM, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:
> >
> > > >�Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a
> > > > theater full of people.
> >
> > > NOTHING will prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a theater
full
> > > of people.
> >
> > Nonsense. See my post above. If you don't know, don't post.
> >
> >
> > William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)
>
> NOTHING can prevent it - you even just said you might lessen the damage.
> By the time you understood what was happening do you not think he would
> have killed several? And if you were on the far side of where he was with
> people scrambling around trying to get out of his way do you not think
> that maybe you wouldn't have a straight shot? Or even a visual?

Would you have rather been there as it happened or been there with one or
more people lawfully carrying a weapon?

Like the old man mentioned before, a clear thinking and trained person
could have broken his train of thought long before he was able to shoot as
many people as he did. He might have run away like the cowards in Miami
or maybe been killed himself.

>
> Actually, as I say NOTHING, maybe we should institute airport security
> everywhere - malls, movie theaters, grocery stores. Make everyone take of
> their shoes, have a full body scan or patdown everywhere we go.

Brian "The Truth" Spencer

[BTSinAustin]

What pisses me off over the last few days is all the talking heads, so
called experts and even mayor Bloomberg have all said that these things
would not happen if we plugged the leaks in the law. Like the gun show
loophole. They ignore the fact that he bought the guns in a store and
passed the background checks.


Brian "The Truth" Spencer

[Dutch]

Please spare me the Rambo rhetoric, fucking idiot.

Do you know what "panic hardware" on exit doors is?
http://tinyurl.com/cu52d6t

Once it closes there is no way to open it from the outside. An usher
should have been alerted as soon as an exit door opened, and he could
have removed that blockage in a few seconds, long before the shooter had
time to suit up and return. Yes he could have gone into the street and
started killing people, but the question was specifically how they could
have prevented him shooting up the theater.

[ramashiva]

On Jul 24, 12:35 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

> ramashiva wrote:

> > On Jul 24, 11:45 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

> >> bratt wrote:

> >>> On Jul 24 2012 12:15 PM, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:

> >>>>    Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a
> >>> theater full of people.

> >>> NOTHING will prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a theater full
> >>> of people.

> >> In this case someone monitoring the exits would have prevented him from
> >> coming back in.

> > Really, Dutch?  The guy is armed to the teeth and in a homicidal
> > rage.  You think a rent-a-cop is going to even slow him down???

> > Seriously, Dutch.  You are a politically correct armchair liberal.
> > You have no understanding of violence and how to deal with it.  Leave
> > the discussion to those of us who have actually dealt with violent
> > situations and know what is required.

> Please spare me the Rambo rhetoric, fucking idiot.

Dutch, your comment is inappropriate, considering my IQ easily exceeds
yours by four standard deviations.

> Do you know what "panic hardware" on exit doors is?

> http://tinyurl.com/cu52d6t

> Once it closes there is no way to open it from the outside. An usher
> should have been alerted as soon as an exit door opened, and he could
> have removed that blockage in a few seconds, long before the shooter had
> time to suit up and return. Yes he could have gone into the street and
> started killing people, but the question was specifically how they could
> have prevented him shooting up the theater.

Why couldn't the shooter just walk back into the theater through the
front door? Answer me that.

You are truly an idiot, Dutch. Like I said, you have no understanding

of violence and how to deal with it.

STFD and STFU.

[Dutch]

ramashiva wrote:
> On Jul 24, 12:35 pm, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> ramashiva wrote:
>
>>> On Jul 24, 11:45 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>> bratt wrote:
>
>>>>> On Jul 24 2012 12:15 PM, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:
>
>>>>>> Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a
>>>>> theater full of people.
>
>>>>> NOTHING will prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a theater full
>>>>> of people.
>
>>>> In this case someone monitoring the exits would have prevented him from
>>>> coming back in.
>
>>> Really, Dutch? The guy is armed to the teeth and in a homicidal
>>> rage. You think a rent-a-cop is going to even slow him down???
>
>>> Seriously, Dutch. You are a politically correct armchair liberal.
>>> You have no understanding of violence and how to deal with it. Leave
>>> the discussion to those of us who have actually dealt with violent
>>> situations and know what is required.
>
>> Please spare me the Rambo rhetoric, fucking idiot.
>
> Dutch, your comment is inappropriate, considering my IQ easily exceeds
> yours by four standard deviations.

Well, for one thing, you don't know that, and for another how should I
put it, plenty of idiots have high IQ's, this guy for example probably
has a high IQ, and he is unquestionably an idiot, in the colloquial, not
literal sense, just as you are.

Is there any area of human endeavor where you don't come off as a
colossal bore?

>> Do you know what "panic hardware" on exit doors is?
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cu52d6t
>
>> Once it closes there is no way to open it from the outside. An usher
>> should have been alerted as soon as an exit door opened, and he could
>> have removed that blockage in a few seconds, long before the shooter had
>> time to suit up and return. Yes he could have gone into the street and
>> started killing people, but the question was specifically how they could
>> have prevented him shooting up the theater.
>
> Why couldn't the shooter just walk back into the theater through the
> front door? Answer me that.

He may have encountered the police if he had walked out into a busy
street like that. That was obviously not what he wanted.

>
> You are truly an idiot, Dutch. Like I said, you have no understanding
> of violence and how to deal with it.

And you are aggressively ignorant about the causes of violence and how
to prevent it.

>
> STFD and STFU.

No

[ramashiva]

Dutch, take your God damned totalitarian Marxist gun grabbing bullshit
elsewhere. No one here is in the mood to listen to it.

[bratt]

I am all for citizens to be able to carry concealed. I do. I was
replying to Willie saying he could have prevented it.

The stupid outrage from the PC crowd is ridiculous.

And the last part (malls etc.) was sarcastic - I thought people would get
it because I have always supported being able to carry guns.

[Truthseeker]

On 7/24/12 11:36 AM, bratt wrote:
> On Jul 24 2012 12:15 PM, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:
>
>> Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a
> theater full of people.
>
> NOTHING will prevent a deranged individual from shooting up a theater full
> of people.

If he could have magically been denied getting any guns, he would have
just used homemade pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails -- and probably
killed and maimed more people.



--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[Will in New Haven]

On Jul 24, 4:59 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best interest to
> have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning these
> weapons?

Well, you should look to your Canadian gun laws then. The assault
rifle could be owned legally in Canada and it would probably be easy
enough to get the handgun. Canada does not have UK/Australia like
restrictive gun laws. I hate to promote stereotypes but what keeps
Canadian violence down is that Canadians are, I'm sorry but I have to
say it, nice.

All that scary talk about "semi-automatic" means if you pull the
trigger it shoots. It is a very large step from fully automatic, a
much larger step than that from a single-action revolver to semi-
auto.

Gun laws are very likely to impact an incident like this in any way.
The guy was _willing_ to violate any number of laws. The continent is
awash in effective firearms and human beings are the animals that can
make weapons. Law cannot change that.

The idea that someone could have stopped him if they had been armed
has some merit but there was apparently no legal impediment to someone
else at the theater being armed. No one happened to be armed. That is
the most likely scenario unless the perp is very unlucky. It is not
like the beginning of WWII when Yamamoto rejected the idea of invading
the U.S. because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

--
Willy "The Lamb" Reich

[Dutch]

So now you're not only tougher and smarter than everyone else, you speak
for them too. Why don't you just go talk to yourself?

[Dutch]

Vince wrote:
> ramashiva <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6537e592-cebb-43f6...@l6g2000pbf.googlegroups
> .com:

>
>> On Jul 24, 1:59 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best
>>> interest to have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the
>>> continent owning these weapons?
>>

>> No one gives a fuck what is in your best interest. The second
>> amendment is designed to protect the right of the people to
>> keep and bear arms, not serve your best interest.
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me again that you are a total asshole.
>
> The coward didn't need any guns. He could have done more damage by
> planting explosives in the theater.

Yea, that's what gun lovers always say, but nut jobs never do that,
nothing gives that ultimate intimate rush like a hail of bullets.

[Dutch]

Vince wrote:
> Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote in
> news:C_FPr.33234$jl.1...@newsfe14.iad:

> In this case, the coward had the expertise to do more damage than
> a gun could do. Notice how meekly he gave up, without a fight.
> Just another crazy that happened to use guns.

Nothing about this just "happened" to take place, it was well planned
and the fact that he had the knowledge and opportunity to do much more
damage with explosives he chose to go on a shooting spree, because
shooting people is therapeutic to this perverted gun-lover mentality,
knowing you blew them up, not so much.

[ramashiva]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:14:03 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:

> Nothing about this just "happened" to take place, it was well planned
> and the fact that he had the knowledge and opportunity to do much more
> damage with explosives he chose to go on a shooting spree, because
> shooting people is therapeutic to this perverted gun-lover mentality,
> knowing you blew them up, not so much.

I thought I told you to take that totalitarian Marxist gun grabbing bullshit elsewhere. No one here wants to hear it.

[TruthSeeker]

On 24/7/12 7:14 PM, Dutch wrote:

> Nothing about this just "happened" to take place, it was well planned
> and the fact that he had the knowledge and opportunity to do much more
> damage with explosives he chose to go on a shooting spree, because
> shooting people is therapeutic to this perverted gun-lover mentality,
> knowing you blew them up, not so much.

What psychobabble bullshit. OK City, the Unabomber, others in the U.S.
used bombs. Globally bombs are the weapon of choice for many terrorists.

He apparently preferred guns but had guns not been available, he would
probably just have gone to plan B.



--
TruthSeeker

[Dutch]

ramashiva wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:14:03 PM UTC-7, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Nothing about this just "happened" to take place, it was well planned
>> and the fact that he had the knowledge and opportunity to do much more
>> damage with explosives he chose to go on a shooting spree, because
>> shooting people is therapeutic to this perverted gun-lover mentality,
>> knowing you blew them up, not so much.
>
> I thought I told you to take that totalitarian Marxist gun grabbing bullshit elsewhere.

Or what, you'll shoot me? Violence is the ultimate solution to all
problems right?

> No one here wants to hear it.

I'm not convinced of that. And I think that although you may not like
it, you need to hear that there is such a thing as a perverted gun-lover
mentality, and that it is very dangerous. Just take how passionately you
feel about your guns and stir in a little worse personality disorder and
you have a recipe for mayhem.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:MZEPr.34865$cE7....@newsfe13.iad...

You've noticed it too -- he can't speak for himself unless he thinks he's
speaking for other people too.

Jim

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 24 2012 8:50 PM, Vince wrote:

> > Nothing about this just "happened" to take place, it was well
> > planned and the fact that he had the knowledge and opportunity
> > to do much more damage with explosives he chose to go on a
> > shooting spree, because shooting people is therapeutic to this
> > perverted gun-lover mentality, knowing you blew them up, not
> > so much.
>

> Well, Dutch, you are getting into his head/mindset. That's above my
> paygrade.

dutch (canadian idiot) still believes zimmerman's a white teabagger.

mo_ntresor

[Dave the Clueless]

On Jul 24 2012 8:10 PM, Dutch wrote:

> > The coward didn't need any guns. He could have done more damage by
> > planting explosives in the theater.
>
> Yea, that's what gun lovers always say, but nut jobs never do that,
> nothing gives that ultimate intimate rush like a hail of bullets.

How would you know, princess?

[Dave the Clueless]

On Jul 24 2012 3:40 PM, Dutch wrote:

> Dave the Clueless wrote:
> > On Jul 24 2012 12:02 PM, BillB wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/24/2012 5:47 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> >>> On Jul 24 2012 5:59 AM, BillB wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Can someone please remind me again why it's in *my* best interest to
> >>>> have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning these
> >>>> weapons?
> >>>

> >>> Hyperbole is a debate tactic of the uninformed, bigot.
> >>
> >> Uh, there was no hyperbole. The gun industry would like nothing more
> >> than for what I suggested to come to pass. Haven't you heard the gun
> >> industry's famous (idiotic) slogan:
> >>
> >> More guns = less crime.
> >>
> >> If more guns = less crime, the US should be one of the safest places on
> >> earth. Instead, you've got mass shootings happening left and right. Is
> >> there ANY level of obscene violence where a typical teabagger-type would
> >> finally say "enough is enough?"
> >>
> >> This James Holmes nutter bought several guns in the space of a couple of
> >> weeks, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and tactical assault
> >> gear. You don't think that should send up a red flag somewhere in a
> >> civilized society?

> >
> > More hyperbole does not lessen the stupidity of your initial hyperbole,
> > bigot.
>
> How can it be hyperbole? The guy actually went on a mass killing spree.
>
> If Bill had expressed fear of YOU and your personal arsenal, that might
> be hyperbole, but he specifically referred to guys like this, one of
> many unhinged nitwits who have easy access to weapons like this.

If you don't know what hyperbole means, look it up. But for the sake of
whatever shred of self-respect you might have don't come here questioning
that what the bigot posted was hyperbole. That just puts you on par with
Jerry.

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 24/7/12 7:14 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Nothing about this just "happened" to take place, it was well planned
>> and the fact that he had the knowledge and opportunity to do much more
>> damage with explosives he chose to go on a shooting spree, because
>> shooting people is therapeutic to this perverted gun-lover mentality,
>> knowing you blew them up, not so much.
>
> What psychobabble bullshit.

That bullshit sells a lot of movie tickets.

OK City, the Unabomber, others in the U.S.
> used bombs. Globally bombs are the weapon of choice for many terrorists.

I doubt very much that he is a terrorist in the sense that he is
politically motivated.

> He apparently preferred guns but had guns not been available, he would
> probably just have gone to plan B.

I see very little evidence that offenders of this type ever use bombs,
they march in like commandos and shoot places up.

[Dutch]

He's no bigot and it wasn't hyperbole, hth

[Dave the Clueless]

Sure, Jerry.

[TruthSeeker]

Like I said, he apparently preferred guns. But what makes you conclude
that if he couldn't get guns, he'd just say "Oh well, I guess I'll just
forget about it" instead of using some other weapon?

If it were possible to keep guns out of the hands of such people --
which it is not -- that would reduce shooting deaths while increasing
deaths by other violent means.

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:10:58 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Jul 25 2012 2:47 PM, Dutch wrote:
>

> &gt; Dave the Clueless wrote:
> &gt; &gt; On Jul 24 2012 3:40 PM, Dutch wrote:
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt; Dave the Clueless wrote:
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; On Jul 24 2012 12:02 PM, BillB wrote:
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On 7/24/2012 5:47 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jul 24 2012 5:59 AM, BillB wrote:
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Can someone please remind me again why it&#39;s in *my* best interest to
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; have every angst-ridden 20-something male on the continent owning
> these
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; weapons?
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hyperbole is a debate tactic of the uninformed, bigot.
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Uh, there was no hyperbole. The gun industry would like nothing more
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; than for what I suggested to come to pass. Haven&#39;t you heard the gun
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; industry&#39;s famous (idiotic) slogan:
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; More guns = less crime.
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If more guns = less crime, the US should be one of the safest places on
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; earth. Instead, you&#39;ve got mass shootings happening left and right. Is
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; there ANY level of obscene violence where a typical teabagger-type would
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; finally say &quot;enough is enough?&quot;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This James Holmes nutter bought several guns in the space of a couple of
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; weeks, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and tactical assault
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; gear. You don&#39;t think that should send up a red flag somewhere in a
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; civilized society?
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; More hyperbole does not lessen the stupidity of your initial hyperbole,
> &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; bigot.
> &gt; &gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt; How can it be hyperbole? The guy actually went on a mass killing spree.
> &gt; &gt;&gt;
> &gt; &gt;&gt; If Bill had expressed fear of YOU and your personal arsenal, that might
> &gt; &gt;&gt; be hyperbole, but he specifically referred to guys like this, one of
> &gt; &gt;&gt; many unhinged nitwits who have easy access to weapons like this.
> &gt; &gt;
> &gt; &gt; If you don&#39;t know what hyperbole means, look it up. But for the sake of
> &gt; &gt; whatever shred of self-respect you might have don&#39;t come here questioning
> &gt; &gt; that what the bigot posted was hyperbole. That just puts you on par with
> &gt; &gt; Jerry.
> &gt;
> &gt; He&#39;s no bigot and it wasn&#39;t hyperbole, hth
>
> Sure, Jerry.

You poor jealous fool. You're on a par with Ramass. You're proven wrong and you cry like a wounded kitten.

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 25/7/12 11:42 AM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> On 24/7/12 7:14 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>>> He apparently preferred guns but had guns not been available, he would
>>> probably just have gone to plan B.
>
>> I see very little evidence that offenders of this type ever use bombs,
>> they march in like commandos and shoot places up.
>
> Like I said, he apparently preferred guns. But what makes you conclude
> that if he couldn't get guns, he'd just say "Oh well, I guess I'll just
> forget about it" instead of using some other weapon?

What makes me conclude that is that no other weapon possesses the
perverse attraction that guns do. "Blowing somebody away" is one of
American culture's most popular iconic acts, depicted on probably the
majority of Hollywood movies (albeit usually in righteous retaliation
for some staged injustice)

> If it were possible to keep guns out of the hands of such people --
> which it is not

It could be made A LOT more difficult.

> -- that would reduce shooting deaths while increasing
> deaths by other violent means.

I don't buy that there is some predetermined number of people that are
going to be murdered and that we can only control the method of their
deaths. I think that shooting people in a righteous passion holds a
special attraction for these violent perverts. Make that a lot harder
and you save lives.

[Dutch]

Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Jul 24 2012 8:10 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>>> The coward didn't need any guns. He could have done more damage by
>>> planting explosives in the theater.
>>
>> Yea, that's what gun lovers always say, but nut jobs never do that,
>> nothing gives that ultimate intimate rush like a hail of bullets.
>
> How would you know, princess?

Someone who doesn't share your lust for blood is not a real man, is that it?

[Dutch]

OK then, it what way is the question hyperbole? You seem to be of the
opinion that every angst ridden 20-something male (along with everyone
else) should continue to have easy access to these kinds of weapons
right? So how does that serve the best interests of the average law
abiding citizen?

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 25 2012 1:38 PM, Dutch wrote:

> > Sure, Jerry.
>
> OK then, it what way is the question hyperbole? You seem to be of the
> opinion that every angst ridden 20-something male (along with everyone
> else) should continue to have easy access to these kinds of weapons
> right? So how does that serve the best interests of the average law
> abiding citizen?

once angstability was determined we could limit access to knives,
firecrackers, and batons.

mo_ntresor

[bratt]

There's a word for this

*ineptocracy*

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:52:41 PM UTC-7, vi...@hush.ai wrote:
> Dutch &lt;n...@email.com&gt; wrote in
> news:qZXPr.25743$%Y2.1...@newsfe02.iad:

>
> &gt; Dave the Clueless wrote:

> &gt;&gt; On Jul 25 2012 2:47 PM, Dutch wrote:
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt; Dave the Clueless wrote:

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jul 24 2012 3:40 PM, Dutch wrote:
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Dave the Clueless wrote:

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jul 24 2012 12:02 PM, BillB wrote:
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On 7/24/2012 5:47 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jul 24 2012 5:59 AM, BillB wrote:
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Can someone please remind me again why it&#39;s in *my*
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; best interest to have every angst-ridden 20-something
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; male on the continent owning
> &gt;&gt; these
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; weapons?

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hyperbole is a debate tactic of the uninformed, bigot.

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Uh, there was no hyperbole. The gun industry would like
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; nothing more than for what I suggested to come to pass.
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Haven&#39;t you heard the gun industry&#39;s famous (idiotic)
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; slogan:

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; More guns = less crime.

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If more guns = less crime, the US should be one of the
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; safest places on earth. Instead, you&#39;ve got mass
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; shootings happening left and right. Is there ANY level
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; of obscene violence where a typical teabagger-type would
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; finally say &quot;enough is enough?&quot;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This James Holmes nutter bought several guns in the
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; space of a couple of weeks, along with thousands of
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; rounds of ammunition and tactical assault gear. You
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; don&#39;t think that should send up a red flag somewhere in
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; a civilized society?

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; More hyperbole does not lessen the stupidity of your
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; initial hyperbole, bigot.

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; How can it be hyperbole? The guy actually went on a mass
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; killing spree.

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If Bill had expressed fear of YOU and your personal
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; arsenal, that might be hyperbole, but he specifically
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; referred to guys like this, one of many unhinged nitwits
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; who have easy access to weapons like this.
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If you don&#39;t know what hyperbole means, look it up. But for
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the sake of whatever shred of self-respect you might have
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; don&#39;t come here questioning that what the bigot posted was
> &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; hyperbole. That just puts you on par with Jerry.
> &gt;&gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt;&gt; He&#39;s no bigot and it wasn&#39;t hyperbole, hth
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; Sure, Jerry.
> &gt;
> &gt; OK then, it what way is the question hyperbole? You seem to be
> &gt; of the opinion that every angst ridden 20-something male
> &gt; (along with everyone else) should continue to have easy access
> &gt; to these kinds of weapons right? So how does that serve the
> &gt; best interests of the average law abiding citizen?
>
> How can someone order online that amount of firepower, and not
> one govt agency even take notice?

Did he break the law?

> He should have been watched from the day he received the guns and
> ammo.

Warrant required.


> Who paid for all that stuff? This seems to me to be one crime
> that could have and should have been prevented.

How?


> If there were any reporting requirments that weren't met, those
> responsible should be held accountable.
> Of course, the govt always locks the barn door tight, After the
> horse has left the building.

The government should have been watching?

Jerry

[TruthSeeker]

On 25/7/12 1:31 PM, Dutch wrote:

> TruthSeeker wrote:

>> Like I said, he apparently preferred guns. But what makes you conclude
>> that if he couldn't get guns, he'd just say "Oh well, I guess I'll just
>> forget about it" instead of using some other weapon?

> What makes me conclude that is that no other weapon possesses the
> perverse attraction that guns do. "Blowing somebody away" is one of
> American culture's most popular iconic acts, depicted on probably the
> majority of Hollywood movies (albeit usually in righteous retaliation
> for some staged injustice)

Ah yes, Hollywood does it that way. And we all know how real to life
Hollywood action movies are.

>> If it were possible to keep guns out of the hands of such people --
>> which it is not
>
> It could be made A LOT more difficult.

Only by making it a lot more difficult for law-abiding citizens as well.
In fact, such efforts increase the difficulty for law-abiding citizens
much more than they do for the nutcases. So you get an illusion of
safety, without the safety.

>> -- that would reduce shooting deaths while increasing
>> deaths by other violent means.
>
> I don't buy that there is some predetermined number of people that are
> going to be murdered and that we can only control the method of their
> deaths. I think that shooting people in a righteous passion holds a
> special attraction for these violent perverts. Make that a lot harder
> and you save lives.

Predetermined number? No. Will gun control stop such tragedies? Also no.

[Dutch]

bratt wrote:
> On Jul 25 2012 2:49 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
>> On Jul 25 2012 1:38 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure, Jerry.
>>>
>>> OK then, it what way is the question hyperbole? You seem to be of the
>>> opinion that every angst ridden 20-something male (along with everyone
>>> else) should continue to have easy access to these kinds of weapons
>>> right? So how does that serve the best interests of the average law
>>> abiding citizen?
>>
>> once angstability was determined we could limit access to knives,
>> firecrackers, and batons.
>>
>> mo_ntresor
>
> There's a word for this

It's a phrase, "circle the wagons".

[fffurken]

On Jul 24, 9:48 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> If he could have magically been denied getting any guns, he would have
> just used homemade pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails -- and probably
> killed and maimed more people.

That sounds awfully like a talking point. You don't have any way of
proving that converse and it seems somewhat unlikely to me.

I dunno, maybe I'm just thinking of the idiot with the orange hair
looking spaced out in court the other day. I'm not sure how much
credit I would want to give him for anything more than getting dressed
up and pulling the trigger on some assault weapons he had easy access
to purchase legally.

Oh and I presume making bombs is illegal in the States?

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 25/7/12 1:31 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>>> Like I said, he apparently preferred guns. But what makes you conclude
>>> that if he couldn't get guns, he'd just say "Oh well, I guess I'll just
>>> forget about it" instead of using some other weapon?
>
>> What makes me conclude that is that no other weapon possesses the
>> perverse attraction that guns do. "Blowing somebody away" is one of
>> American culture's most popular iconic acts, depicted on probably the
>> majority of Hollywood movies (albeit usually in righteous retaliation
>> for some staged injustice)
>
> Ah yes, Hollywood does it that way. And we all know how real to life
> Hollywood action movies are.

They're real to life when violent nutcases act them out as this guy did.

>>> If it were possible to keep guns out of the hands of such people --
>>> which it is not
>>
>> It could be made A LOT more difficult.
>
> Only by making it a lot more difficult for law-abiding citizens as well.

Fine, it ought to be difficult. Why is that such a problem? It's not
IMPOSSIBLE, just difficult. Once you law abiding citizens have your guns
then you have them forever.

> In fact, such efforts increase the difficulty for law-abiding citizens
> much more than they do for the nutcases. So you get an illusion of
> safety, without the safety.

If it makes it difficult, it makes it difficult, which decreases the
likelihood nutcases will be able to arm themselves. Anyone purchasing
heavy armaments ought to undergo a lengthy screening process, at least.

>>> -- that would reduce shooting deaths while increasing
>>> deaths by other violent means.
>>
>> I don't buy that there is some predetermined number of people that are
>> going to be murdered and that we can only control the method of their
>> deaths. I think that shooting people in a righteous passion holds a
>> special attraction for these violent perverts. Make that a lot harder
>> and you save lives.
>
> Predetermined number? No. Will gun control stop such tragedies? Also no.

I never said it would stop them. Laws don't stop crimes either, they
just make them less attractive.

[Dutch]

fffurken wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:48 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> If he could have magically been denied getting any guns, he would have
>> just used homemade pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails -- and probably
>> killed and maimed more people.
>
> That sounds awfully like a talking point. You don't have any way of
> proving that converse and it seems somewhat unlikely to me.

Every time somebody goes on a shooting spree the NRA types trot out all
the usual ones. This is just a variation on, "Now I suppose you want to
ban sharp sticks."

> I dunno, maybe I'm just thinking of the idiot with the orange hair
> looking spaced out in court the other day. I'm not sure how much
> credit I would want to give him for anything more than getting dressed
> up and pulling the trigger on some assault weapons he had easy access
> to purchase legally.
>
> Oh and I presume making bombs is illegal in the States?

He did make bombs, he had his apartment booby trapped.

[Dave the Clueless]

Not every "angst ridden 20-something male" owns these weapons. That is
hyperbole. Look it up.

And who said it serves the bigot's best interests? That is a strawman.

[Truthseeker]

On 7/25/12 5:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 25/7/12 1:31 PM, Dutch wrote:

>>> What makes me conclude that is that no other weapon possesses the
>>> perverse attraction that guns do. "Blowing somebody away" is one of
>>> American culture's most popular iconic acts, depicted on probably the
>>> majority of Hollywood movies (albeit usually in righteous retaliation
>>> for some staged injustice)

>> Ah yes, Hollywood does it that way. And we all know how real to life
>> Hollywood action movies are.

> They're real to life when violent nutcases act them out as this guy did.

So, can you distinguish between the two? Fantasy vs. reality? BTW,
Hollywood does a lot of blowing things up with bombs too, and vehicles
that crash in movies nearly always burst into flame.

Hey, if violent movies inspire these guys, why not ban violent movies?

>>>> If it were possible to keep guns out of the hands of such people --
>>>> which it is not
>>>
>>> It could be made A LOT more difficult.
>>
>> Only by making it a lot more difficult for law-abiding citizens as well.
>
> Fine, it ought to be difficult. Why is that such a problem? It's not
> IMPOSSIBLE, just difficult. Once you law abiding citizens have your guns
> then you have them forever.

No it should NOT be difficult. Why do you want to make more difficult
for the law-abiding citizen to buy guns legally than for the sociopath
to buy them illegally?

>> In fact, such efforts increase the difficulty for law-abiding citizens
>> much more than they do for the nutcases. So you get an illusion of
>> safety, without the safety.
>
> If it makes it difficult, it makes it difficult, which decreases the
> likelihood nutcases will be able to arm themselves. Anyone purchasing
> heavy armaments ought to undergo a lengthy screening process, at least.

No it doesn't. And this perp had no heavy armaments. Only small arms.
And fortunately, no homemade bombs or incendiary devices.

>>> I don't buy that there is some predetermined number of people that are
>>> going to be murdered and that we can only control the method of their
>>> deaths. I think that shooting people in a righteous passion holds a
>>> special attraction for these violent perverts. Make that a lot harder
>>> and you save lives.

>> Predetermined number? No. Will gun control stop such tragedies? Also no.

> I never said it would stop them. Laws don't stop crimes either, they
> just make them less attractive.

And laws have consequences. Look at how the drug laws have done more
harm than good to society.



--
Truthseeker

[Dutch]

They all CAN if they want to, easily, that is the point. It's not
hyperbole to point that out.

>
> And who said it serves the bigot's

Being aware of bigotry does not a bigot make.

> best interests? That is a strawman.

Should every citizen not seek to be governed according to his best
interests? If not, how else?

[Dutch]

Truthseeker wrote:
> On 7/25/12 5:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> On 25/7/12 1:31 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>>>> What makes me conclude that is that no other weapon possesses the
>>>> perverse attraction that guns do. "Blowing somebody away" is one of
>>>> American culture's most popular iconic acts, depicted on probably the
>>>> majority of Hollywood movies (albeit usually in righteous retaliation
>>>> for some staged injustice)
>
>>> Ah yes, Hollywood does it that way. And we all know how real to life
>>> Hollywood action movies are.
>
>> They're real to life when violent nutcases act them out as this guy did.
>
> So, can you distinguish between the two? Fantasy vs. reality? BTW,
> Hollywood does a lot of blowing things up with bombs too, and vehicles
> that crash in movies nearly always burst into flame.

The question is not whether *I* can, it is whether or not *he* could.

> Hey, if violent movies inspire these guys, why not ban violent movies?

Hey, he couldn't have pulled those triggers without hands, let's cut off
everyone's hands.

>
>>>>> If it were possible to keep guns out of the hands of such people --
>>>>> which it is not
>>>>
>>>> It could be made A LOT more difficult.
>>>
>>> Only by making it a lot more difficult for law-abiding citizens as well.
>>
>> Fine, it ought to be difficult. Why is that such a problem? It's not
>> IMPOSSIBLE, just difficult. Once you law abiding citizens have your guns
>> then you have them forever.
>
> No it should NOT be difficult.

Yes it absolutely should! There is NO sensible reason for it to be easy.
What's the rush?

> Why do you want to make more difficult
> for the law-abiding citizen to buy guns legally than for the sociopath
> to buy them illegally?

First, it's not like you react to a threat by going out and buying a gun
like you buy a soda when you're thirsty. A gun is something you buy and
keep, it's a long term investment.

Second I do not want it to be so easy to buy them illegally. That is
part of the problem.

>
>>> In fact, such efforts increase the difficulty for law-abiding citizens
>>> much more than they do for the nutcases. So you get an illusion of
>>> safety, without the safety.
>>
>> If it makes it difficult, it makes it difficult, which decreases the
>> likelihood nutcases will be able to arm themselves. Anyone purchasing
>> heavy armaments ought to undergo a lengthy screening process, at least.
>
> No it doesn't.

uhh yes, it does.

> And this perp had no heavy armaments. Only small arms.

Whatever, they were heavy enough.

> And fortunately, no homemade bombs or incendiary devices.

He made bombs, he left them at home, like most creeps of this type he
chose GUNS to make his statement. Guns have a palpable appeal to

>
>>>> I don't buy that there is some predetermined number of people that are
>>>> going to be murdered and that we can only control the method of their
>>>> deaths. I think that shooting people in a righteous passion holds a
>>>> special attraction for these violent perverts. Make that a lot harder
>>>> and you save lives.
>
>>> Predetermined number? No. Will gun control stop such tragedies? Also no.
>
>> I never said it would stop them. Laws don't stop crimes either, they
>> just make them less attractive.
>
> And laws have consequences. Look at how the drug laws have done more
> harm than good to society.

Laws to prohibit people from getting high make no sense at all.

[Truthseeker]

On 7/26/12 12:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Truthseeker wrote:
>> On 7/25/12 5:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> TruthSeeker wrote:

>>>> Ah yes, Hollywood does it that way. And we all know how real to life
>>>> Hollywood action movies are.

>>> They're real to life when violent nutcases act them out as this guy did.

>> So, can you distinguish between the two? Fantasy vs. reality? BTW,
>> Hollywood does a lot of blowing things up with bombs too, and vehicles
>> that crash in movies nearly always burst into flame.

> The question is not whether *I* can, it is whether or not *he* could.

So, more psychobabble.

Many violent Hollywood movies in recent years have featured
swordfighting, not guns. So why didn't he use a sword? If guns are
preferred because of "blowing someone away," well, cutting off heads is
even more up close and personal.

>> Hey, if violent movies inspire these guys, why not ban violent movies?

> Hey, he couldn't have pulled those triggers without hands, let's cut off
> everyone's hands.

Well, that is just as silly. Which is why I asked the question, to show
how silly it would be.

...

>>>> Only by making it a lot more difficult for law-abiding citizens as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> Fine, it ought to be difficult. Why is that such a problem? It's not
>>> IMPOSSIBLE, just difficult. Once you law abiding citizens have your guns
>>> then you have them forever.
>>
>> No it should NOT be difficult.
>
> Yes it absolutely should! There is NO sensible reason for it to be easy.
> What's the rush?

That is your opinion, and of little worth. It isn't up to you to decide
someone else's needs.

>> Why do you want to make more difficult
>> for the law-abiding citizen to buy guns legally than for the sociopath
>> to buy them illegally?
>
> First, it's not like you react to a threat by going out and buying a gun
> like you buy a soda when you're thirsty. A gun is something you buy and
> keep, it's a long term investment.

So is buying a car, we don't make that difficult just to reduce the
number of cars bought.

> Second I do not want it to be so easy to buy them illegally. That is
> part of the problem.

I want to win the WSOP Main Event. I have a lot better chance of
getting what I want that you do of getting what you want.

...

>> And fortunately, no homemade bombs or incendiary devices.
>
> He made bombs, he left them at home, like most creeps of this type he
> chose GUNS to make his statement. Guns have a palpable appeal to

You're refuting your own argument. He used both guns and bombs, but he
wasn't clever enough in his triggers so his unattended bombs didn't go
off. Given that he used both, do you still claim that if he couldn't
have gotten guns he wouldn't have used bombs in the theater?

...

>>> I never said it would stop them. Laws don't stop crimes either, they
>>> just make them less attractive.

>> And laws have consequences. Look at how the drug laws have done more
>> harm than good to society.

> Laws to prohibit people from getting high make no sense at all.

You and I agree on that, but a lot of people do not. They are as wrong
about drug laws as you are about gun laws.

[Will in New Haven]

How about in the best interest of the people of the nation and the
interest of fairness? Besides, BillB asked how it is in HIS best
interest and that is just silly. No one, except BillB, makes public
policy by asking "What is in BillB's best interest."

--
Willy "The Lamb" Reich

[mo_ntresor]

On Jul 26 2012 1:23 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> > Should every citizen not seek to be governed according to his best
> > interests? If not, how else?
>
> How about in the best interest of the people of the nation and the
> interest of fairness? Besides, BillB asked how it is in HIS best
> interest and that is just silly. No one, except BillB, makes public
> policy by asking "What is in BillB's best interest."

he IS pitifully average, no?

mo_ntresor

[da pickle]

On Jul 26, 12:45 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

< he IS pitifully average, no?
<
< mo_ntresor

-----------


mo_tresor childish insults since Jul 26, 2011 10:20 am
======================================================

Insult #1 = "gullible"

Insult #2 = "idiot"

Insult #3 = "pitifully average"

[Dutch]

Truthseeker wrote:
> On 7/26/12 12:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>> On 7/25/12 5:48 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>>>>> Ah yes, Hollywood does it that way. And we all know how real to life
>>>>> Hollywood action movies are.
>
>>>> They're real to life when violent nutcases act them out as this guy
>>>> did.
>
>>> So, can you distinguish between the two? Fantasy vs. reality? BTW,
>>> Hollywood does a lot of blowing things up with bombs too, and vehicles
>>> that crash in movies nearly always burst into flame.
>
>> The question is not whether *I* can, it is whether or not *he* could.
>
> So, more psychobabble.

He was dressed as "The Joker" ffs!

> Many violent Hollywood movies in recent years have featured
> swordfighting, not guns.

Bullshit.

So why didn't he use a sword? If guns are
> preferred because of "blowing someone away," well, cutting off heads is
> even more up close and personal.

You can run from a sword.

>>> Hey, if violent movies inspire these guys, why not ban violent movies?
>
>> Hey, he couldn't have pulled those triggers without hands, let's cut off
>> everyone's hands.
>
> Well, that is just as silly.

Exactly my point.

> Which is why I asked the question, to show
> how silly it would be.

It's not silly to attempt to severely restrict access to what are the
favored and by far the most deadly weapons used by nutcases and
criminals. It's irresponsible to NOT do so.

> ...
>>>>> Only by making it a lot more difficult for law-abiding citizens as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> Fine, it ought to be difficult. Why is that such a problem? It's not
>>>> IMPOSSIBLE, just difficult. Once you law abiding citizens have your
>>>> guns
>>>> then you have them forever.
>>>
>>> No it should NOT be difficult.
>>
>> Yes it absolutely should! There is NO sensible reason for it to be easy.
>> What's the rush?
>
> That is your opinion, and of little worth. It isn't up to you to decide
> someone else's needs.

That's not an answer,it's a tantrum, why do you need instant access to
more firearms? And this argument is primarily being made by people who
already own one or more firearms.

>>> Why do you want to make more difficult
>>> for the law-abiding citizen to buy guns legally than for the sociopath
>>> to buy them illegally?
>>
>> First, it's not like you react to a threat by going out and buying a gun
>> like you buy a soda when you're thirsty. A gun is something you buy and
>> keep, it's a long term investment.
>
> So is buying a car, we don't make that difficult just to reduce the
> number of cars bought.

It's a different problem, but some people should not be allowed to drive
cars either. Two local teens were arrested yesterday for racing their
mommy's cars, and almost killing a pedestrian, they should be barred
from driving until they're 25.

Cars and guns are not equivalent, neither are guns and knives, or guns
and pointy sticks. Guns are different, period.

>
>> Second I do not want it to be so easy to buy them illegally. That is
>> part of the problem.
>
> I want to win the WSOP Main Event. I have a lot better chance of
> getting what I want that you do of getting what you want.

To quote an overused metaphor, you put men on the moon.

...
>>> And fortunately, no homemade bombs or incendiary devices.
>>
>> He made bombs, he left them at home, like most creeps of this type he
>> chose GUNS to make his statement. Guns have a palpable appeal to
>
> You're refuting your own argument. He used both guns and bombs, but he
> wasn't clever enough in his triggers so his unattended bombs didn't go
> off. Given that he used both, do you still claim that if he couldn't
> have gotten guns he wouldn't have used bombs in the theater?

Nobody knows, he may have, but a lot of creeps like him would not have
had the ability or the inclination to have that plan B. The shooter
diving for cover blasting away with gun held sideways is such a powerful
image.

>
> ...
>>>> I never said it would stop them. Laws don't stop crimes either, they
>>>> just make them less attractive.
>
>>> And laws have consequences. Look at how the drug laws have done more
>>> harm than good to society.
>
>> Laws to prohibit people from getting high make no sense at all.
>
> You and I agree on that, but a lot of people do not. They are as wrong
> about drug laws as you are about gun laws.

Two things, and this is a reasonable debate, thank you.

Surely we can at least agree that it would be a good thing if we could
make it A LOT harder for criminal to get guns, and..

I still can't see how it harms legitimate gun owners to have to go
through a rigorous process when acquiring new guns. All it means is that
they have to make do with the guns they have for a little longer, while
at the same time making it more difficult for problem types to arm
themselves.

[Dutch]

Will in New Haven wrote:

Doesn't "the people of the nation" and "every citizen" mean the same thing?

> Besides, BillB asked how it is in HIS best
> interest and that is just silly. No one, except BillB, makes public
> policy by asking "What is in BillB's best interest."

I think it's obvious that by "my best interests" he meant the best
interests of everyday law abiding citizens, not his specifically. I
think you know that very well, you're just obfuscating.

[Dave the Clueless]

On Jul 25 2012 12:59 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On Jul 24 2012 8:10 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> > > The coward didn't need any guns. He could have done more damage by
> > > planting explosives in the theater.
> >
> > Yea, that's what gun lovers always say, but nut jobs never do that,
> > nothing gives that ultimate intimate rush like a hail of bullets.
>
> How would you know, princess?
>

> -------
> When the truth hurts, lie. - Obama 2012

Not every one. Just you, princess.

[Dutch]

Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Jul 25 2012 12:59 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
>> On Jul 24 2012 8:10 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>> The coward didn't need any guns. He could have done more damage by
>>>> planting explosives in the theater.
>>>
>>> Yea, that's what gun lovers always say, but nut jobs never do that,
>>> nothing gives that ultimate intimate rush like a hail of bullets.
>>
>> How would you know, princess?
>>
>> -------
>> When the truth hurts, lie. - Obama 2012
>
> Not every one. Just you, princess.

Why are calling yourself princess, princess?

[Truthseeker]

On 7/26/12 3:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Truthseeker wrote:
>> On 7/26/12 12:15 PM, Dutch wrote:

...

>> Many violent Hollywood movies in recent years have featured
>> swordfighting, not guns.

> Bullshit.

Here's a few for ya:

http://www.hollywood.com/feature/Top_Ten_Badass_Ninja_Movies/5734391

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ninja_films

> So why didn't he use a sword? If guns are
>> preferred because of "blowing someone away," well, cutting off heads is
>> even more up close and personal.

> You can run from a sword.

In a crowded theater with exits jammed?

...

> It's not silly to attempt to severely restrict access to what are the
> favored and by far the most deadly weapons used by nutcases and
> criminals. It's irresponsible to NOT do so.

There you go again projecting your opinions and desires on everyone
else. What you suggest is irresponsible, anathema to a fee society.

...

> Cars and guns are not equivalent, neither are guns and knives, or guns
> and pointy sticks. Guns are different, period.

Everything is different from everything else. In the U.S. we do have
Constitutional protection of our right (as individuals) to keep and bear
arms -- thankfully, to prevent people like you from taking it away.

>>> Second I do not want it to be so easy to buy them illegally. That is
>>> part of the problem.
>>
>> I want to win the WSOP Main Event. I have a lot better chance of
>> getting what I want that you do of getting what you want.
>
> To quote an overused metaphor, you put men on the moon.

Which was a hell of a lot easier than keeping guns out of the hands of
sociopaths. Infinitely so: it was doable, where banning guns is not.

> ...
>>>> And fortunately, no homemade bombs or incendiary devices.
>>>
>>> He made bombs, he left them at home, like most creeps of this type he
>>> chose GUNS to make his statement. Guns have a palpable appeal to
>>
>> You're refuting your own argument. He used both guns and bombs, but he
>> wasn't clever enough in his triggers so his unattended bombs didn't go
>> off. Given that he used both, do you still claim that if he couldn't
>> have gotten guns he wouldn't have used bombs in the theater?
>
> Nobody knows, he may have, but a lot of creeps like him would not have
> had the ability or the inclination to have that plan B. The shooter
> diving for cover blasting away with gun held sideways is such a powerful
> image.

yeah, that whole holding sideways is a popular movie image but a lousy
way to use a gun. The ninja floating through the air vanquishing a
horde of enemies with a sword is equally powerful and ridiculous. But a
lot of people have a fascination with swords and other (non-firearm)
ninja weapons.

>> ...

>> You and I agree on that, but a lot of people do not. They are as wrong
>> about drug laws as you are about gun laws.
>
> Two things, and this is a reasonable debate, thank you.
>
> Surely we can at least agree that it would be a good thing if we could
> make it A LOT harder for criminal to get guns, and..

Harder for criminals? Sure. There is IMO no way to do that without
violating the rights of law-abiding people, unfortunately. And making
it harder would not solve the problem anyway (also IMO). Look at the
failed efforts to ban alcohol, and the failure to ban drugs, despite
massive government efforts. When there is a demand it will be filled,
no matter how much the government wants to stop it.

This kind of mass shooting is actually a very, very tiny problem. We
have 300 million people and a few dozen are victims of this per year.
You are as likely to be killed by lightning.

The gang violence on the streets of big cities is much, much worse, and
the least amenable to being curbed by trying to keep them from getting guns.

> I still can't see how it harms legitimate gun owners to have to go
> through a rigorous process when acquiring new guns. All it means is that
> they have to make do with the guns they have for a little longer, while
> at the same time making it more difficult for problem types to arm
> themselves.

I believe that you gain very little safety by such a process. I do
accept a short waiting period for handguns (although 24 hours is enough).

[Dutch]

Truthseeker wrote:
> On 7/26/12 3:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>> On 7/26/12 12:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> ...
>>> Many violent Hollywood movies in recent years have featured
>>> swordfighting, not guns.
>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Here's a few for ya:
>
> http://www.hollywood.com/feature/Top_Ten_Badass_Ninja_Movies/5734391
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ninja_films

Get back to me when some guy in Colorado walks into a Burger King and
attempts mass murder with a sword.

>> So why didn't he use a sword? If guns are
>>> preferred because of "blowing someone away," well, cutting off heads is
>>> even more up close and personal.
>
>> You can run from a sword.
>
> In a crowded theater with exits jammed?

Which scenario would you prefer to be caught in?

>> It's not silly to attempt to severely restrict access to what are the
>> favored and by far the most deadly weapons used by nutcases and
>> criminals. It's irresponsible to NOT do so.
>
> There you go again projecting your opinions and desires on everyone
> else. What you suggest is irresponsible, anathema to a fee society.

Free societies survive because the people within them live according to
rules, morals, and codes of conduct. What I suggest exists already in
most free societies. US gun laws are too lax by any reasonable standard.

>
> ...
>> Cars and guns are not equivalent, neither are guns and knives, or guns
>> and pointy sticks. Guns are different, period.
>
> Everything is different from everything else. In the U.S. we do have
> Constitutional protection of our right (as individuals) to keep and bear
> arms -- thankfully, to prevent people like you from taking it away.

Where did I suggest that anyone's right to bear arms be taken away? This
is the strawman that gets trotted out every time reasonable gun
regulations are put on the table.

>>>> Second I do not want it to be so easy to buy them illegally. That is
>>>> part of the problem.
>>>
>>> I want to win the WSOP Main Event. I have a lot better chance of
>>> getting what I want that you do of getting what you want.
>>
>> To quote an overused metaphor, you put men on the moon.
>
> Which was a hell of a lot easier than keeping guns out of the hands of
> sociopaths. Infinitely so: it was doable, where banning guns is not.

"Banning guns"??? Where does that come from?

>
>> ...
>>>>> And fortunately, no homemade bombs or incendiary devices.
>>>>
>>>> He made bombs, he left them at home, like most creeps of this type he
>>>> chose GUNS to make his statement. Guns have a palpable appeal to
>>>
>>> You're refuting your own argument. He used both guns and bombs, but he
>>> wasn't clever enough in his triggers so his unattended bombs didn't go
>>> off. Given that he used both, do you still claim that if he couldn't
>>> have gotten guns he wouldn't have used bombs in the theater?
>>
>> Nobody knows, he may have, but a lot of creeps like him would not have
>> had the ability or the inclination to have that plan B. The shooter
>> diving for cover blasting away with gun held sideways is such a powerful
>> image.
>
> yeah, that whole holding sideways is a popular movie image but a lousy
> way to use a gun. The ninja floating through the air vanquishing a
> horde of enemies with a sword is equally powerful and ridiculous. But a
> lot of people have a fascination with swords and other (non-firearm)
> ninja weapons.

Yet no mass killings so far by a nutcase with a sword.

>
>>> ...
>
>>> You and I agree on that, but a lot of people do not. They are as wrong
>>> about drug laws as you are about gun laws.
>>
>> Two things, and this is a reasonable debate, thank you.
>>
>> Surely we can at least agree that it would be a good thing if we could
>> make it A LOT harder for criminal to get guns, and..
>
> Harder for criminals? Sure. There is IMO no way to do that without
> violating the rights of law-abiding people, unfortunately.

Why not?

> And making
> it harder would not solve the problem anyway (also IMO). Look at the
> failed efforts to ban alcohol, and the failure to ban drugs, despite
> massive government efforts. When there is a demand it will be filled,
> no matter how much the government wants to stop it.

But I'm not suggesting banning guns, so that's all immaterial.

>
> This kind of mass shooting is actually a very, very tiny problem. We
> have 300 million people and a few dozen are victims of this per year.
> You are as likely to be killed by lightning.

Tell that to the families of the victims.

> The gang violence on the streets of big cities is much, much worse, and
> the least amenable to being curbed by trying to keep them from getting
> guns.

Why? Somebody legally manufactures and sells all these guns, that's
where the problem starts. These people are complicit IMO.

>
>> I still can't see how it harms legitimate gun owners to have to go
>> through a rigorous process when acquiring new guns. All it means is that
>> they have to make do with the guns they have for a little longer, while
>> at the same time making it more difficult for problem types to arm
>> themselves.
>
> I believe that you gain very little safety by such a process. I do
> accept a short waiting period for handguns (although 24 hours is enough).

What's the hurry? Anyway, it would certainly be reasonable and possible
for people to qualify for a special permit that would allow them to buy
a gun anytime they want. Screening would only apply to unregistered
people, who would have to go extensive background and other evaluations
before they would qualify for one.

[RedKnave]

On Jul 24 2012 1:33 PM, ramashiva wrote:

> On Jul 24, 10:15 am, "Beldumb TurdSavant" <a866...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Colorado is a right to carry state and the theater that the shooting took
> > place in last week does not prevent people from carrying concealed
> > weapons.  Your solution did not prevent a deranged individual from
> > shooting up a theater full of people.  I support RTC, I am a member of the
> > NRA and licensed to carry in many states.(Except my own state, IL.)  I
> > believe RTC can and does prevent some criminal activity, it would not have
> > prevented the massacre in Colorado last week.
>
> If I had been in the audience and carrying my Ruger .357 magnum
> revolver with 7.5" barrel and loaded with 158-grain hollow point
> rounds, I would have put one of those hollow points between the
> shooter's eyes before he did much damage.
>
> The 7.5" barrel makes accurate shooting at the ranges involved in a
> movie theater easy, and I am a dead accurate shot with this revolver
> at 50 yards. Most people have no understanding of the lethality of
> such a revolver in the hands of an expert handgun shooter, which I am.
>
>
> William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)

I was a bit unbelieving about pistol accuracy at 50 yrds until I did a
search and saw the discussions and claims for very tight groupings at 50.
I thought you might be interested in seeing this guy shoot a Glock 23 at
230 yds (also does a Glock 27 and a Commander 1911.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd3kF6LHz4

[TruthSeeker]

On 27/7/12 1:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
> Truthseeker wrote:
>> On 7/26/12 3:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/12 12:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> Many violent Hollywood movies in recent years have featured
>>>> swordfighting, not guns.
>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Here's a few for ya:
>>
>> http://www.hollywood.com/feature/Top_Ten_Badass_Ninja_Movies/5734391
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ninja_films
>
> Get back to me when some guy in Colorado walks into a Burger King and
> attempts mass murder with a sword.

That's the point ... the movies glorify killing with swordplay just as
they glorify killing with guns, yet they don't cause nutcases to use
swords.

So it remains that although guns may be the most common weapon the
nutcases choose, if they couldn't get guns they'd just use something
else. It's the killing that's the motivation, not the means.

>>> So why didn't he use a sword? If guns are
>>>> preferred because of "blowing someone away," well, cutting off heads is
>>>> even more up close and personal.
>>
>>> You can run from a sword.
>>
>> In a crowded theater with exits jammed?
>
> Which scenario would you prefer to be caught in?

Neither. But if I did, I'd prefer to have a handgun to protect myself
and others with.

>>> It's not silly to attempt to severely restrict access to what are the
>>> favored and by far the most deadly weapons used by nutcases and
>>> criminals. It's irresponsible to NOT do so.
>>
>> There you go again projecting your opinions and desires on everyone
>> else. What you suggest is irresponsible, anathema to a fee society.
>
> Free societies survive because the people within them live according to
> rules, morals, and codes of conduct. What I suggest exists already in
> most free societies. US gun laws are too lax by any reasonable standard.

Again, that is a matter of opinion. Yours carries no more weight than
anyone else's.

>> ...
>>> Cars and guns are not equivalent, neither are guns and knives, or guns
>>> and pointy sticks. Guns are different, period.
>>
>> Everything is different from everything else. In the U.S. we do have
>> Constitutional protection of our right (as individuals) to keep and bear
>> arms -- thankfully, to prevent people like you from taking it away.
>
> Where did I suggest that anyone's right to bear arms be taken away? This
> is the strawman that gets trotted out every time reasonable gun
> regulations are put on the table.

So to you, making it much more difficult to obtain guns isn't infringing
on the right? Like being a little bit pregnant?

...

>>> Surely we can at least agree that it would be a good thing if we could
>>> make it A LOT harder for criminal to get guns, and..

>> Harder for criminals? Sure. There is IMO no way to do that without
>> violating the rights of law-abiding people, unfortunately.

> Why not?

With black-market guns, like drugs, so easy to get, it can't be done
even if you make the U.S. a full-bore police state.

>> And making
>> it harder would not solve the problem anyway (also IMO). Look at the
>> failed efforts to ban alcohol, and the failure to ban drugs, despite
>> massive government efforts. When there is a demand it will be filled,
>> no matter how much the government wants to stop it.
>
> But I'm not suggesting banning guns, so that's all immaterial.

Maybe not de jure, but de facto. You want to make them hard to get for
law-abiding citizens.

>> This kind of mass shooting is actually a very, very tiny problem. We
>> have 300 million people and a few dozen are victims of this per year.
>> You are as likely to be killed by lightning.

> Tell that to the families of the victims.

Tell that to the families of those murdered by gangs in Chicago this
month. Tell that to the families of those killed by drunk drivers.
Tell that to the families of those murdered following rape (that's often
with knives, you know).

>> The gang violence on the streets of big cities is much, much worse, and
>> the least amenable to being curbed by trying to keep them from getting
>> guns.
>
> Why? Somebody legally manufactures and sells all these guns, that's
> where the problem starts. These people are complicit IMO.

Now you're blaming the manufactures of a legal product for the misuse of
it by buyers. When the blame lies 100% with those who misuse them.

>>> I still can't see how it harms legitimate gun owners to have to go
>>> through a rigorous process when acquiring new guns. All it means is that
>>> they have to make do with the guns they have for a little longer, while
>>> at the same time making it more difficult for problem types to arm
>>> themselves.
>>
>> I believe that you gain very little safety by such a process. I do
>> accept a short waiting period for handguns (although 24 hours is enough).
>
> What's the hurry? Anyway, it would certainly be reasonable and possible
> for people to qualify for a special permit that would allow them to buy
> a gun anytime they want. Screening would only apply to unregistered
> people, who would have to go extensive background and other evaluations
> before they would qualify for one.

None of which would solve the problem. It's not a problem of guns, it's
a problem of shooters (people). One last time: if they absolutely could
not get guns, they would just use something else -- possibly even more
deadly.

You're suggesting the TSA approach (the airport screening): a program
that costs millions of dollars, countless hours of delay and lost
productivity, and inconveniences millions of people without actually
making us any safer. It's all theater, feel-good solutions that do more
harm than good. And that's all your "make guns harder to buy legally" is.



--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

On 25/7/12 4:18 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:48 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> If he could have magically been denied getting any guns, he would have
>> just used homemade pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails -- and probably
>> killed and maimed more people.
>
> That sounds awfully like a talking point. You don't have any way of
> proving that converse and it seems somewhat unlikely to me.

So you think he would have just said "Oh, well, I'll just forget about
it."

> I dunno, maybe I'm just thinking of the idiot with the orange hair
> looking spaced out in court the other day. I'm not sure how much
> credit I would want to give him for anything more than getting dressed
> up and pulling the trigger on some assault weapons he had easy access
> to purchase legally.

> Oh and I presume making bombs is illegal in the States?

Like that's going to stop him. Do you really not know that he DID make
bombs and incendiaries, but he rigged them to go off in his apartment,
killing whoever came to the door and burning down the building? His
mistake there (fortunately) was using simple tripwires and then telling
the cops about the bombs. If he'd used a motion detector (available at
any Wal-Mart) as the trigger, with a timer backup, it would have gone off.

Do you have any idea the number of people who have been killed in fires
in public places? There have been many cases of more than twelve.
Arson in a crowded theater would be devastating, and not need a single gun.

[fffurken]

On Jul 27, 10:14 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:

> >> If he could have magically been denied getting any guns, he would have
> >> just used homemade pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails -- and probably
> >> killed and maimed more people.
>
> > That sounds awfully like a talking point. You don't have any way of
> > proving that converse and it seems somewhat unlikely to me.
>
> So you think he would have just said "Oh, well, I'll just forget about
> it."

I don't know for sure what he would have thought or been capable of.

Why do you believe the murder rate would remain the same in the
absence of guns? A gun is a deadly weapon. A 3 year old could kill
someone with a gun.

> > I dunno, maybe I'm just thinking of the idiot with the orange hair
> > looking spaced out in court the other day. I'm not sure how much
> > credit I would want to give him for anything more than getting dressed
> > up and pulling the trigger on some assault weapons he had easy access
> > to purchase legally.
> > Oh and I presume making bombs is illegal in the States?
>
> Like that's going to stop him.  Do you really not know that he DID make
> bombs and incendiaries, but he rigged them to go off in his apartment,
> killing whoever came to the door and burning down the building?  His
> mistake there (fortunately) was using simple tripwires and then telling
> the cops about the bombs.  If he'd used a motion detector (available at
> any Wal-Mart) as the trigger, with a timer backup, it would have gone off.
>
> Do you have any idea the number of people who have been killed in fires
> in public places?  There have been many cases of more than twelve.
> Arson in a crowded theater would be devastating, and not need a single gun.

So he would have burnt down the theater and killed everyone inside
instead if he didn't have guns, you sure about that? Why doesn't that
happen in other countries? We all have our crazies.

Besides, the vast majority of gun murders in the US are not committed
during a spree killing. They're everyday occurrences.

[Bill Vanek]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:43:50 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:

>Yet no mass killings so far by a nutcase with a sword.

You're kidding, right? Maybe not in the U.S., but I'm not even sure of
that.

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 27/7/12 1:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>> On 7/26/12 3:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>>>> On 7/26/12 12:15 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> Many violent Hollywood movies in recent years have featured
>>>>> swordfighting, not guns.
>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Here's a few for ya:
>>>
>>> http://www.hollywood.com/feature/Top_Ten_Badass_Ninja_Movies/5734391
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ninja_films
>>
>> Get back to me when some guy in Colorado walks into a Burger King and
>> attempts mass murder with a sword.
>
> That's the point ... the movies glorify killing with swordplay just as
> they glorify killing with guns, yet they don't cause nutcases to use
> swords.

That's *MY* point.

> So it remains that although guns may be the most common weapon the
> nutcases choose, if they couldn't get guns they'd just use something
> else. It's the killing that's the motivation, not the means.

I think it's the power trip, the release of pent-up anger, and nothing
produces that feeling like shooting people, not that I have any personal
experience with shooting people, but that's my impression.

>>>> So why didn't he use a sword? If guns are
>>>>> preferred because of "blowing someone away," well, cutting off heads is
>>>>> even more up close and personal.
>>>
>>>> You can run from a sword.
>>>
>>> In a crowded theater with exits jammed?
>>
>> Which scenario would you prefer to be caught in?
>
> Neither. But if I did, I'd prefer to have a handgun to protect myself
> and others with.

You'd be in a better position to protect yourself if he had failed the
psychological profile tests to obtain guns and you were dealing with a
sword wielding nutcase.

>
>>>> It's not silly to attempt to severely restrict access to what are the
>>>> favored and by far the most deadly weapons used by nutcases and
>>>> criminals. It's irresponsible to NOT do so.
>>>
>>> There you go again projecting your opinions and desires on everyone
>>> else. What you suggest is irresponsible, anathema to a fee society.
>>
>> Free societies survive because the people within them live according to
>> rules, morals, and codes of conduct. What I suggest exists already in
>> most free societies. US gun laws are too lax by any reasonable standard.
>
> Again, that is a matter of opinion. Yours carries no more weight than
> anyone else's.

I never claim otherwise.

>>> ...
>>>> Cars and guns are not equivalent, neither are guns and knives, or guns
>>>> and pointy sticks. Guns are different, period.
>>>
>>> Everything is different from everything else. In the U.S. we do have
>>> Constitutional protection of our right (as individuals) to keep and bear
>>> arms -- thankfully, to prevent people like you from taking it away.
>>
>> Where did I suggest that anyone's right to bear arms be taken away? This
>> is the strawman that gets trotted out every time reasonable gun
>> regulations are put on the table.
>
> So to you, making it much more difficult to obtain guns isn't infringing
> on the right? Like being a little bit pregnant?

Nothing like that at all. The right to own firearms is not contingent on
any specific degree of ease or speed in obtaining them.

I have to ask you again, I assume you already own guns and would qualify
for a license to be able to purchase others if such a permit was
available, so how would the laws I suggest infringe on your rights?

A separate question, even if you had to wait, so what? How does that
harm you?

>
> ...
>>>> Surely we can at least agree that it would be a good thing if we could
>>>> make it A LOT harder for criminal to get guns, and..
>
>>> Harder for criminals? Sure. There is IMO no way to do that without
>>> violating the rights of law-abiding people, unfortunately.
>
>> Why not?
>
> With black-market guns, like drugs, so easy to get, it can't be done
> even if you make the U.S. a full-bore police state.

They need to crack down on the sources of black market guns. Right now
the gun manufacturers have politicians in their pockets.

>>> And making
>>> it harder would not solve the problem anyway (also IMO). Look at the
>>> failed efforts to ban alcohol, and the failure to ban drugs, despite
>>> massive government efforts. When there is a demand it will be filled,
>>> no matter how much the government wants to stop it.
>>
>> But I'm not suggesting banning guns, so that's all immaterial.
>
> Maybe not de jure, but de facto. You want to make them hard to get for
> law-abiding citizens.

Hard-er to get, yes, unless you pre-qualify, which you likely would.

>>> This kind of mass shooting is actually a very, very tiny problem. We
>>> have 300 million people and a few dozen are victims of this per year.
>>> You are as likely to be killed by lightning.
>
>> Tell that to the families of the victims.
>
> Tell that to the families of those murdered by gangs in Chicago this
> month. Tell that to the families of those killed by drunk drivers.
> Tell that to the families of those murdered following rape (that's often
> with knives, you know).

I'm not the one who said it. They were mostly killed with illicit guns
too. Fix that problem. Stop saying it's impossible, that's ridiculous.

>>> The gang violence on the streets of big cities is much, much worse, and
>>> the least amenable to being curbed by trying to keep them from getting
>>> guns.
>>
>> Why? Somebody legally manufactures and sells all these guns, that's
>> where the problem starts. These people are complicit IMO.
>
> Now you're blaming the manufactures of a legal product for the misuse of
> it by buyers. When the blame lies 100% with those who misuse them.

I'm saying that they are responsible for who they sell to.

>
>>>> I still can't see how it harms legitimate gun owners to have to go
>>>> through a rigorous process when acquiring new guns. All it means is that
>>>> they have to make do with the guns they have for a little longer, while
>>>> at the same time making it more difficult for problem types to arm
>>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> I believe that you gain very little safety by such a process. I do
>>> accept a short waiting period for handguns (although 24 hours is enough).
>>
>> What's the hurry? Anyway, it would certainly be reasonable and possible
>> for people to qualify for a special permit that would allow them to buy
>> a gun anytime they want. Screening would only apply to unregistered
>> people, who would have to go extensive background and other evaluations
>> before they would qualify for one.
>
> None of which would solve the problem. It's not a problem of guns, it's
> a problem of shooters (people). One last time: if they absolutely could
> not get guns, they would just use something else -- possibly even more
> deadly.
>
> You're suggesting the TSA approach (the airport screening): a program
> that costs millions of dollars, countless hours of delay and lost
> productivity, and inconveniences millions of people without actually
> making us any safer. It's all theater, feel-good solutions that do more
> harm than good. And that's all your "make guns harder to buy legally" is.

Not just harder to buy legally, harder for first time purchasers, and
far more controlled at the manufacturing level so unscrupulous
distributors don't get hold of them.

[TruthSeeker]

On 27/7/12 4:43 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:14 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> So you think he would have just said "Oh, well, I'll just forget about
>> it."

> I don't know for sure what he would have thought or been capable of.

> Why do you believe the murder rate would remain the same in the
> absence of guns? A gun is a deadly weapon. A 3 year old could kill
> someone with a gun.

Who's talking about the murder rate? This kind of incident is
responsible for something less than 1% of the murders in a given year.
Yet they always cause a rash of rants about gun control.

...

>> Do you have any idea the number of people who have been killed in fires
>> in public places? There have been many cases of more than twelve.
>> Arson in a crowded theater would be devastating, and not need a single gun.

> So he would have burnt down the theater and killed everyone inside
> instead if he didn't have guns, you sure about that? Why doesn't that
> happen in other countries? We all have our crazies.

I don't know what specific attack he would have used absent guns, there
are many options.

These things DO happen in other countries, and more often with bombs or
incendiaries than with guns.

> Besides, the vast majority of gun murders in the US are not committed
> during a spree killing. They're everyday occurrences.
>

Thank you, I've been making that point for a while now.

[TruthSeeker]

On 28/7/12 12:20 AM, Dutch wrote:
> TruthSeeker wrote:
>> On 27/7/12 1:43 PM, Dutch wrote:

>>> Get back to me when some guy in Colorado walks into a Burger King and
>>> attempts mass murder with a sword.

>> That's the point ... the movies glorify killing with swordplay just as
>> they glorify killing with guns, yet they don't cause nutcases to use
>> swords.

> That's *MY* point.

Then we agree on that. Progress. Now if you can understand that it
isn't guns in movies that motivate people to choose guns for such
crimes, we'll have made more progress.

>> So it remains that although guns may be the most common weapon the
>> nutcases choose, if they couldn't get guns they'd just use something
>> else. It's the killing that's the motivation, not the means.
>
> I think it's the power trip, the release of pent-up anger, and nothing
> produces that feeling like shooting people, not that I have any personal
> experience with shooting people, but that's my impression.

I accept that it's your impression. And I agree with the first part,
just not that they only can get their rush with guns.

...

>>> Which scenario would you prefer to be caught in?

>> Neither. But if I did, I'd prefer to have a handgun to protect myself
>> and others with.

> You'd be in a better position to protect yourself if he had failed the
> psychological profile tests to obtain guns and you were dealing with a
> sword wielding nutcase.

If he chose a sword, yes. If he chose pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails
(easily made by anyone, with no permits involved), no.

...

>>> Where did I suggest that anyone's right to bear arms be taken away? This
>>> is the strawman that gets trotted out every time reasonable gun
>>> regulations are put on the table.

>> So to you, making it much more difficult to obtain guns isn't infringing
>> on the right? Like being a little bit pregnant?

> Nothing like that at all. The right to own firearms is not contingent on
> any specific degree of ease or speed in obtaining them.

One of the classic ways of attacking a right is to pick away at it
little by little, gradually making it more difficult to exercise. That
does not generate nearly the resistance of a sudden total infringement.

> I have to ask you again, I assume you already own guns and would qualify
> for a license to be able to purchase others if such a permit was
> available, so how would the laws I suggest infringe on your rights?

I don't judge rights by my own personal situation. And, see my
paragraph above. Even if what you suggest would actually reduce gun
violence (which I doubt), I do not believe it would be worth it.

> A separate question, even if you had to wait, so what? How does that
> harm you?

Any interference with our rights harms everyone.

...

>> With black-market guns, like drugs, so easy to get, it can't be done
>> even if you make the U.S. a full-bore police state.

> They need to crack down on the sources of black market guns. Right now
> the gun manufacturers have politicians in their pockets.

Again, nice sounding suggestion, but not achievable. And not because of
the gun lobby (powerful as it is, thankfully IMO), but because of the
inability of governments to stop black markets where there is a demand.

...

>>> Why? Somebody legally manufactures and sells all these guns, that's
>>> where the problem starts. These people are complicit IMO.

>> Now you're blaming the manufactures of a legal product for the misuse of
>> it by buyers. When the blame lies 100% with those who misuse them.

> I'm saying that they are responsible for who they sell to.

And I say that's nonsense.

[TruthSeeker]

Hmmm ... you're right. The massacres in Rwanda were done mostly with
machetes, for one example.



--
TruthSeeker